Sino-American relations are, once again, in a downswing. Beijing objected to US President Barack Obama’s receiving the Dalai Lama in the White House, as well as to the administration’s arms sales to Taiwan. There was ample precedent for both US decisions, but some Chinese leaders expected Obama to be more sensitive to what China sees as its “core interests” in national unity.
Things were not supposed to turn out this way. A year ago, the Obama administration made major efforts to reach out to China. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton referred to “being in the same boat,” and that China and the US would “rise and fall together.” US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said he spent more time consulting his Chinese counterparts than those in any other country. Some observers even referred to a US-Chinese “G2” that would manage the world economy.
The G2 idea was always foolish. Europe has a larger economy than both the US and China, and Japan’s economy is currently about the same size as China’s. Their participation in the solution of global problems will be essential. Nonetheless, growing US-Chinese cooperation within the G20 last year was a positive sign of bilateral and multilateral cooperation.
Whatever the concerns regarding the recent events related to the Dalai Lama and Taiwan, it is important to note that the deterioration in US-Chinese relations began beforehand. Many US members of Congress, for example, complain that US jobs are being destroyed by China’s intervention in currency markets to maintain an artificially low value for the yuan.
A second issue was China’s decision not to cooperate at the UN conference on global climate change in Copenhagen in December. Not only did China resist measures that had been under negotiation for the preceding year, but Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao’s (溫家寶) decision to send a low-level official to meet with and point a finger at Obama was downright insulting.
China behaved similarly when the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (plus Germany) met to discuss sanctions against Iran for violations of its obligations to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Again, China sent a low-ranking official.
What happened to those promising early signs of cooperation? Two reasons for the change in Chinese behavior — seemingly inconsistent at first glance, but in fact perhaps mutually reinforcing — seem possible.
First, a political transition is expected in 2012, and, in a period of rising nationalism, no Chinese leader wants to look softer than his rivals. This helps to explain the recent crackdowns in Tibet and Xinjiang, as well as the detention of human rights lawyers.
In addition, China may be approaching an economic transition. Some Chinese argue that anything less than 8 percent growth would be inadequate to ensure sufficient job creation and fend off social instability. But, as the US’ savings rate begins to rise, China’s export-led growth model, which has promoted employment in China at the cost of global trade imbalances, may no longer be possible. If China responds to entreaties to revalue the yuan, it may need to look tough on other issues to appease nationalist sentiment.
The second cause of China’s recent behavior could be hubris and overconfidence. China is justly proud of its success in emerging from the world recession with a high rate of economic growth. It blames the US for producing the recession, and now holds some US$2 trillion in foreign-exchange reserves.
Many Chinese believe that this represents a shift in the global balance of power, and that China should be less deferential to other countries, including the US. Certain Chinese academics are now writing about the decline of the US, with one identifying the year 2000 as the peak of US power.
This overconfidence in foreign policy, combined with insecurity in domestic affairs, may combine to explain the change in Chinese behavior in the latter part of last year. If so, China is making a serious miscalculation.
First, the US is not in decline. Americans and others have been predicting decline regularly over the years: after the Soviets launched Sputnik in 1957; again when former US president Richard Nixon closed the gold window in 1971; and when the US rust-belt economy seemed to be overtaken by Japanese manufacturers in the 1980s. But when one looks at the underlying strength of the US economy, it is not surprising that the World Economic Forum ranks the US second (just behind Switzerland) among the most competitive, while China ranks some 30 places below.
Second, that China holds so many US dollars is not a true source of power, because the interdependence in the economic relationship is symmetrical. True, if China dumped its dollars on world markets, it could bring the US economy to its knees, but in doing so, it would bring itself to its ankles.
China would not only lose the value of its dollar reserves, but would suffer major unemployment. When interdependence is balanced, it does not constitute a source of power.
Third, despite Chinese complaints, the dollar is likely to remain the major global reserve currency, owing to the depth and breadth of the US’ capital markets, which China cannot match without making the yuan fully convertible and reforming its banking system.
Finally, China has miscalculated by violating the wisdom of Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), who advised that China should proceed cautiously and “keep its light under a basket.”
As a senior Asian statesman told me recently, Deng would never have made this mistake. If Deng were in charge today, he would lead China back to the cooperative relations with the US that prevailed early last year.
Joseph Nye, a former assistant US secretary of defense, is a professor at Harvard University.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS